Valley cities decry bills aimed at curbing municipal authority

A spate of bills in the Legislature aimed at controlling city activities have led some municipal leaders in Arizona to cry foul.

The legislative session includes bills that would limit the ability of cities to tax rental homes, determine whether cities can charge water deposits to landlords and require Tucson and Phoenix to seek bids on city services that private companies might be able to provide more cheaply.

And many of the bills place the costs for new requirements on the cities.

Karen Peters, a longtime lobbyist who works for Phoenix, is frustrated by the sheer volume and scope of the legislation: About 200 of the more than 1,300 bills proposed this session addressed cities or counties. Although many of them failed to go anywhere, cities say some of the most onerous are still advancing.

"Why have councils? Why have mayors?" Avondale Mayor Marie Lopez Rogers asked. "Why even bother, if they're going to make up the laws and they're going to run the cities? It's just very, very frustrating."

Some city officials accuse legislators of hypocrisy, noting that state officials have spoken out against federal interference in state government.

State lawmakers shrug off complaints.

Bill sponsors say cities are political subdivisions of the state and accuse city officials of being financially irresponsible by heaping new fees and taxes onto residents. Many of the city-related bills impose financial limits.

"They are spending a lot of money," said Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City. "They need to control their costs."

Under Arizona's Constitution, the state has authority over cities and counties, said Paul Bender, a law professor at Arizona State University who teaches constitutional law.

The debate over local control isn't unique to Arizona. The economic downturn that led to so many state budgets being out of whack has exacerbated the problem as states seek to balance budgets by shifting costs to cities, counties and school districts.

That is leading local officials in some places to push back.

In Texas, a constitutional amendment proposed for the November ballot would limit the Legislature's authority to impose requirements on local governments without paying for them.

In New York, Michigan and Florida, city officials and supporters are lobbying for legislation that would force those states to pay for costs they impose on the cities.

The struggle between cities and lawmakers is mired in each side's conviction that they need to be in charge. Cities insist lawmakers are micromanaging in traditional city affairs, like setting water rates, that demand municipal expertise. Legislators retort that municipal residents are their constituents, too, and lawmakers are obliged to curb city financial excess and policies that limit residents' rights.

Cities cry foul

The scores of bills in the Arizona Legislature range from those targeted at a specific city, like Phoenix, Tucson and Avondale, to those affecting every municipality, large and small.

Senate Bill 1525, for example, would limit the kinds of things for which impact fees can be charged and change how the fees are calculated. The fees, assessed on new development, pay for new public services.

Opponents say the proposed legislation would push some of the cost of new parks, fire stations and water-treatment plants onto existing residents. Supporters argue that it would lower the cost of new homes, help reinvigorate the homebuilding industry and make sure new residents get the infrastructure they've paid for.

Mesa Mayor Scott Smith, a former homebuilder, said that he understands improvements are necessary but that some of the changes would undo years of negotiations with homebuilders and hinder development when cities need it most.

"As a conservative, I especially believe that one of the most important principles we have is that decisions in government should be made by those people who are closest to those who elected them," Smith said. "It troubles me that you have decisions that impact specific cities that are being made by a Legislature that was not elected to run that specific city."

Potholes and police

Sen. Frank Antenori, R-Tucson, is the primary sponsor behind many of the bills that regulate cities.

Antenori said that he doesn't like sticking his nose into cities' business but that the actions of a few cities require it.

"Every time we try to decrease regulations, the cities see it as a vacuum and fill it with fees and taxes," Antenori said. "They are becoming islands of anti-growth with bureaucracies that are growing out of control."

He said lawmakers have a responsibility to protect the individual rights of the city residents who are their constituents, as well. Bills that forbid cities from requiring sprinklers in single-family homes, allow hunting in city limits and ban photo-enforcement cameras address that issue.

"(Cities) have infringed upon the free market and the rights of my constituents," Antenori said.

He said if cities stuck to handling potholes, police and fire, there would be no problem.

Gould, who sponsored a measure requiring cities that ban firearms in buildings to install metal detectors and other security measures, laughed at cities' accusation that the state is being hypocritical for fighting federal regulation while regulating cities.

"The states created the federal government, and we gave them limited power," Gould said. "The counties and cities are political subdivisions of the state."

Bender said that although Gould's characterization of the state's authority over the counties and cities is accurate, his assessment of the state's authority over the federal government is not.

"The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that federal law is the 'supreme law of the land' and that the states are bound by it, regardless of what the state's law or the state's constitution might say," Bender said. "The federal courts - ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court - not the states or the state legislatures, determine the limits that federal law places on state power and authority."

Legislative debate

The cities do have some support in the Legislature and from the governor.

During a recent Senate debate on some city legislation, Sen. John Nelson, R-Litchfield Park, a former Phoenix council member, criticized other Republicans.

"Why would we as a state government want to control a lower level of government that has done a much better job controlling costs than we have?" Nelson asked. "The cities have been cutting costs for over three years. They anticipated long before we did the crisis that was coming."

Nelson said that the state should set standards but that too many controls on city leaders tie their hands and lead to inefficiency.

Rep. Steve Urie, R-Gilbert, a former Gilbert council member new to the Legislature, said that many freshmen lawmakers this session do not have experience in local government or school boards.

"With so many new freshmen, they want to solve everybody's problems," Urie said.

"They don't realize that you don't have to solve everybody else's problem."

Gov. Jan Brewer said she generally doesn't support legislation to solve the state's fiscal crisis by passing costs to local governments. She met with city and county representatives in March.

"I think it's unfair to balance the state budget by just pushing those tax increases down to local government," Brewer said. "They (municipalities) have tried to be our friends. They have tried to help us in every manner they could."

But Brewer has supported legislation that limits municipal control. In March, Brewer signed into law House Bill 2153, which prohibits cities and counties from adopting an ordinance that requires installing fire sprinklers in single-family homes. The bill was signed with an emergency clause, taking effect immediately.

The legislation was written in response to a trade association's decision last summer to add mandatory fire sprinklers to its recommended residential-building code.

In a letter to House Speaker Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, Brewer said she signed the bill because such a requirement would have "put obstacles in the way of the home-construction industry's efforts to recover from a very deep recession."

She added that the fire-sprinkler decision "belongs in the hands of the homebuyer."